When people speak negatively of the weight on a long trek, I agree.Since putting a vertical/battery grip on my camera, the added leverage has made the 17-55 much easier to deal with/ balance than prior using. Lens is sharp be f4.
Peak sharpness seems to fall in the 5.6 -7.1 range

Jun 20, 2016

esquire1954OnlineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 23, 2015Location: United StatesPosts: 89

Review Date: Jan 14, 2016

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

speed. sharpness, combined with build quality

Cons:

?

The best lens I have for my D7100, color & contrast are the best!

Jan 14, 2016

oldshutterhandOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 24, 2012Location: HungaryPosts: 0

Review Date: Jan 10, 2014

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

It is a very good lens, very sharp, excellent build quality

Cons:

Little heavy, expensive, vr would be useful, only for Dx

This is a very good quality, well built lens, but little heavy and expensive. I prefer the 16-85 and 35 f1.8 combo. Only for DX.

Some people may be put off by the size/weight of a pro lens (not me :D )

I originally thought my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC, which everyone claims is 95% as good as the 17-55 , could get me through whatever I encountered. Didn't happen. I purchased a Nikon 80-200mm F/2.8 two ring right before a wedding, and was blown away by the quality. That instantly became my favorite lens. I shot that wedding using it and the Tamron, and was very displeased to find the results of the Tamron were noticeably sub-par in comparison, every area that could be rated. Good thing most of the wedding was shot with the big lens, and I could handle making the other shots match it (though it was time consuming).

So I spent a while checking eBay till I found a good deal on a 17-55 F/2.8 AF-S. Finally got it a couple weeks ago, and yeah, you definitely get what you pay for with Nikon pro lenses. It's just as sharp and contrasty as the 80-200, making it the ideal companion, and making my workflow seamless between lenses. I can even use wide open shots at full crop if necessary, since the lens is so sharp the D7000 can take full advantage.

Speaking of the D7000, it balances perfectly on the camera when you add a grip. The center of gravity is right at the mount. Even though the combo is technically heavy, the balance makes it very easy to hold and shoot with. It's now displaced the 80-200mm as my favorite lens.

All in all, if you want the best DX zoom in the 17-50 range, or are on the fence between Tamron/Sigma/Tokina and Nikon, the 17-55 can't be beat.

Nov 2, 2011

Tim AshtonOfflineImage Upload: On

Registered: Dec 26, 2006Location: AustraliaPosts: 3212

Review Date: Sep 22, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Sharp, great colour and contrast and fast focussing

Cons:

Not light but then what fast zoom is

Perfect lens for DX and with the advent of the D7k there is no need to go FX, for me anyhow

Sep 22, 2011

eleganteyeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 10, 2009Location: United StatesPosts: 189

Review Date: Aug 28, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp for a zoom, quick focus

Cons:

DX format

This is my favorite lens when using the D2Xs. It is pretty good when you don't have a lot of room to get back from your subject. Minimal distortion. Some ghosting under back-lit conditions, but shouldn't be a problem for studio work where you have control of the light. Versatile enough that you can be lazy and not change lenses so often.

So to sum up this review I should start by saying all of our photographers refer to this lens as the "gem piece" because of it's reliability in the field. The lens produces mega sharp images every time and is one of the best DX all around lenses. If you've got a DX sensor and you're looking to buy 1 nice lens, this is definitely it!

This was my first Nikon lens after moving from Canon. It replaced (and surpassed!) my Canon 17-55 EF-S. There's just no real comparison: better build, great IQ, no sub-standard IS unit going out once a year.

On my D300, this is pretty much my go-to lens. I take it most everywhere and I've done all day walkarounds without ever changing lenses. Excellent color, contrast and overall sharpness.

May 5, 2009

SambruOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 6, 2007Location: CanadaPosts: 749

Review Date: Nov 17, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Very Sharp

Cons:

A bit heavy, however balances well on my D300

I love this lens it lives on my D300. It is so sharp, Quiet and fast.

Nov 17, 2008

BaraOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 17, 2008Location: CroatiaPosts: 21

Review Date: Aug 17, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6

Pros:

build quality, weight(I like when lens is heavy)

Cons:

average optical quality, price, DX lens

This is very good build lens, but to expensive because it's only DX lens. It's just little better then Sigma 18-50 2,8 and Tokina 16-50 2,8 and same as Tamron 17-50 2,8 in therms of optical quality. Lens is way worse than Tamron 28-75 2,8, Sigma 24-70 2,8, Nikkor 24-70 2,8 and Nikkor 28-70 2,8.
Price in Croatia €1650 and that is to expensive comparing with €420 for Tamron 17-50 2,8 and 17-50 €510 for Sigma 18-50 2,8 HSM. Sigma 24-70 2,8 cost €470, Nikkor 24-70 2,8 €1800 and Nikkor 28-70 2,8 €1950.

Aug 17, 2008

gfaheyOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 17, 2008Location: N/APosts: 0

Review Date: Jul 17, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

fast, balanced, build quality, bokeh

Cons:

none I can think of

I sold my 17-55 so I could trade up from my D200 to the D300. I missed it immediately. Within a week I bought a used one for $950. These can be had for even cheaper used. Mine was like new and all I can say is "Yes!!".

It makes me a better photographer. I looked at the 18-200 VR and just couldn't bring myself to buy a toy lens. Alright, the 18-200 VR is OK but, the 17-55 is the Mercedes Benz compared to the Kia. For me anyways, the balance (with the battery grip) with this lens on my D300 is superb. It's a hefty lens but, I feel I am using a pro lens. I get great night concert shots in the pit with this wide open. I go from 17mm to 55mm hundreds of times during events like these and the 17-55 gives me real keeper shots. If you're reading this then you are already considering it. So get it then! With my 85 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR I get all the shots. I've tried the cheaper lenses and there is a huge difference with regards to sharpness and that wonderful out of focus bokeh. If you are willing to pay $700 or so for a 18-200VR then look around and pay another $250 or so and get a good used 17-55. They are out there.

Jul 17, 2008

SeptemberOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 14, 2008Location: NetherlandsPosts: 15

Review Date: Jul 8, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp, good contrast, clarity.

Cons:

price

The lens has to be stopped down to give sharp pictures.
The clarity is amazing, you get the feeling you are actualy "in the picture".
This lens is on my d2x most of the time. It can take a beating
(it actualy has several times). Weather proof rubber ring on the mount prevents dust and waterdroplets from entering the camerabody.
In combination with the d2x it takes some time to master it and get excellent results, but its worth taking the effort.
AF is very fast and silent.
At 17mm medium distortion for a zoom.
It can be used on a FX camera (tryed it on a D3) but not below 28mm because of vignetting due to smaller imagecircle.

Reports of distortion at the wide end, though my experience in this is negligible. Expensive, but come on... it's a pro Nikkor. No VR.

This is a superb optic. It couples perfectly with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (forget the 20mm in between) for professional work ranging from weddings to sports.

It's a heavier lens, so fitting on a D40/x/60 or even a D80 can surprise some users by it's weight. I love it though. The metal housing and the heft give this glass a sense of purpose and longevity. This is the perfect lens for wide use on the DX sensor - without question. If you are using a D3 or the new D700 however, you should reconsider as it will not allow you to take full advantage of the FX sensor. The recommended alternative for the full frame line of camera bodies is the awesome new 24-70mm.

I mentioned that no VR is con for this lens. Canon does offer an IS in the same focal range, but it's an EF-S and will only work with the Rebel and the 10/20/30/40D range - not even the EOS 1D which still has a 1.3x crop factor. This lens is a little older now, so it's not surprising that VR is absent, but it would have been a nice feature. I DO wish it had come included on the new 24-70mm however. Nikon has added it to their introductory 18-55mm, but not to their newest pro line. Seems strange that a once up scale feature is being left out of some great new lenses.

Don't not get this lens because of the VR though. It's wicked fast and is a perfect tool for the working professional.

Jul 6, 2008

BlimeyOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 6, 2007Location: United StatesPosts: 139

Review Date: Jul 1, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

build quality, optics, zooming length

Cons:

price!

after dropping close to $2000 on the d300, i opted on a cheaper lens such as the 18-200vr. a plethora seems to be available on craigslist so i took the plunge and purchased one for $550. my first shoot was my friends little cousin's birthday and i was disappointed with the quality of my images. granted there were alot of keepers but i found some with blur on action shot. at f/3.5-5.6 it was definitely not fast enough.

i then had plans to work in singapore for 1 month and i was not happy with the 18-200vr. i sold it immediately while looking for a bargain deal for the 17-55mm (didnt want to pay full price with tax). i searched craigslist for days prior to my departure for singapore. i was lucky to find someone local who was selling his. i immediately contacted him and sealed the transaction.

while using it in a foreign country, the 17-55mm held out well. images are great and most of all i appreciated its build quality. it was raining once and coupled with my d300, i need not worry.

the only thing that bothered my was during night shots. i had a few images with flares from a light source. i shot in manual with f/22 and 30sec exposure and held on a tripod and definitely got some flare. i think is this normal based on what i read on some threads. although, it could just be my technique that needs improvement.

I read many reviews for the 18-200mm VR and decided to but this with my D300 -Big mistake!!!

There is no comparison between the two. I've had the 17-55mm for less than two weeks and the images so far are a lot sharper, with less distortion. The Boker wide open is fantastic, something the 18-200 just can't achieve.

THe build quality and handling are also superior, no zoom creap here.

As soon as you handle this lens you feel like its going to achieve more and there's no disappointment.

I do feel the lens is overpriced at £830 UK and now I've experienced Nikon Pro lenses for the first time It's looking like the 70-200mm VR is on the cards. So another £1150 on the credit card.